Malcolm X gave up his life for what he believed to be the true practice of Islam, namely peace, tolerance, and love. Malcolm X was a true martyr, because he was killed by others, instead of killing oneself at the expense of others. Muhammad Atta believed himself to be a martyr of Islam, by killing himself in battle against the "Great Satan." Out of the two, who was the better Muslim? Whose actions more closely exemplified the spirit and overall message of the Koran?

Peace.

Matthew777,

I've read the whole thread, and I have to wonder why you'd expect anyone here to care either way who was a 'true martyr' for Islam? Both of them died in their false beliefs. It is a very tragic thing. They didn't die as Christian martyrs. I'd much rather hear about Christian martyrs who should inspire us in our faith instead of martyrs for a false religion.

Saint Athanasius said inspiring things regarding Christianmartyrdom in On the Incarnation:

"All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead. Before the divine sojourn of the Savior, even the holiest of men were afraid of death, and mourned the dead as those who perish. But now that the Savior has raised His body, death is no longer terrible, but all those who believe in Christ tread it underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ, knowing full well that when they die they do not perish, but live indeed, and become incorruptible through the resurrection. But that devil who of old wickedly exulted in death, now that the pains of death are loosed, he alone it is who remains truly dead. There is proof of this too; for men who, before they believe in Christ, think death horrible and are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so completely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it."

I don't advocate promoting his cultus, but rather am just reacting against people insulting his memory with anachronistic arguments.

That is more or less what I posted - that his cult today is edited to include only the positive things. Even such things as the sacramental coronation of the emperor and such have slowly fallen out of our Traditional ecclesiology.

Quote

I don't think he was glorified for his great ruling ability at any rate, but the fact that the Church chose to glorify him means I accept it.

For that matter it isn't clear why he was glorified. To Moscow he was a "passion bearer" and to the ROCOR a "martyr." For what cause he was actually a matyr... who knows. Only time will tell if his cult is a real thing or if it merely fades away in coming generations.

Still, my initial was point that the cult of Nicholas II is not the historical Nicholas II.

I've read the whole thread, and I have to wonder why you'd expect anyone here to care either way who was a 'true martyr' for Islam?

Islamic militantism is a threat to peace, and perhaps this threat could be lessened if more Muslims realized that it isn't a true expression of their faith. Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.

Islamic militantism is a threat to peace, and perhaps this threat could be lessened if more Muslims realized that it isn't a true expression of their faith. Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.

Who are you to tell Muslims which expression of their faith is the true one? How would you like it if a Muslim told you that Sola Scriptura protestantism is the true expression of Christianity? Or better yet, that Chalcedon was a true council...

Islamic militantism is a threat to peace, and perhaps this threat could be lessened if more Muslims realized that it isn't a true expression of their faith. Furthermore, perhaps there would be less intolerance toward Islam in the Western world is more Westerners realized that Islam, at its heart, is not a militant faith.

Have you read the Quran and Hadith? I ask this because even though most Muslims out there aren't wanting to throw their lives away and cause violence, one gets a very brutal view of the faith after reading its holy writings. Islam is a religion that is very missionary and they have been known to use some very strong arm tactics to entice people to become Muslim. A lot of Christian martyrs died because they wouldn't recant their beliefs when faced with these strong armed Muslim tactics. They want the world to be Muslim. Under Islam there are three choices for non-Muslims: You convert, you are killed, or you live under their subjugation. Non-Muslims should expect death or becoming dhimmi.

I've read the Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which discusses in detail that brutality of the Chalcedonian party. I see little difference between this and the behavior of contemporary Islamic governments.

You have to understand the issue in the historic context...while it may be a religious issue today, at the time it was merely a political issue with religion thrown out as an excuse for behaviour (yes, yes, protest all you want...but the fact of the matter is that no one on either side really cared about the theology at Chalcedon, at least no body that mattered, they were primarially concerned with the political implications of their decisions)...the non-chalcedonian movement was nothing more than an attempted revolution against the emperor, non-chalcedonians were traitors...Justianian realized this political fact, and the fact that the religious issues were an irrelevant smoke-screne, and acted accordingly.

So judge Justinian for what he did, he put down political revolutionaries, sometimes using violent means (suppressing a revolution by force, who would have thought ).

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

You have to understand the issue in the historic context...while it may be a religious issue today, at the time it was merely a political issue with religion thrown out as an excuse for behaviour...

So judge Justinian for what he did, he put down political revolutionaries, sometimes using violent means (suppressing a revolution by force, who would have thought ).

They dominated the Dark Ages practicing Christianity and CARNAGE, but their Engineering feats topped even the Romans. Aquaducts, amphitheaters, Cathedrals and virtually invincible city walls. And a beacon of light with a dark side.

Stay tuned for the History Channel in the U.S. on (Dec. 25th) Monday Christmas Night Special on 9 PM Eastern/ 8 Central the Byzantines called Engineering an Empire .

The Orthodox Church is the Imperial Church, and the two cannot be separate. I have nothing but admiration for my Patron Saint Justinian and his Wife; his execution of 30,000 traitors was something that did need to be done at that time. Had he NOT done that, there would be no Hagia Sofia, and most likely, the Empire would have crumbled, as would the power of our church.

Quote

It is not the Church's responsibility to govern the world.

The union of Church and State is needed for perfect unity in any State. It IS the churche's responsibility to govern the world along with the state, both in union.

Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."

For that matter it isn't clear why he was glorified. To Moscow he was a "passion bearer" and to the ROCOR a "martyr." For what cause he was actually a matyr... who knows. Only time will tell if his cult is a real thing or if it merely fades away in coming generations.

In most of the hagiography the reason both ROCOR and Moscow accept he and his family as saints has to do with their personal belief and devotion as a family to the Church and to the Saints. They cite numerous practices of piety and charity of both the Tsar and Tsarina. The hagiography notes that the Royal Family continued to try to influence the decadent Imperial court to do individual acts of charity,nursing of the sick and wounded, sewing, and support of the widowed and the orphan. (Did you know that at the time of the Revolution, 80% of the income of the Royal Family was being used to support widows, orphans, the private schooling of orphans, scholarships to the seminaries for promising students, monasteries, and convents, shelters for women, industrial education centers and housing programs, cultural schools like the Bolshoi and other arts schools?)

The Tsar's abdication was to prevent additional bloodshed and is noted in the letters of the government and those who witnessed it. Under House arrest first by the Provisional government and the Bolsheviks, the Royal family remembered that they were truely God annointed rulers and accepted abuse and ridicule as a cross they must bear in Christ's love (read the journals of the family and you will see this vividly in their most personal entries.) Tsar and Tsarina refused to participate in white Russian plots and plans for their rescue for fear of those who would be injured by such action.

To the Moscow Patriarchate, this qualified them for Passionbearers just as Boris and Gleb qualified for passionbearers for the same reason.

To the ROCOR Synod, the facts behind the decision of Lenin to assure that the royal, annointed bloodline of the Romanovs was fully eliminated as Christian rulers coincided withthe planned distruction of the Russian Orthodox Church which included not only the Royal family but the other New Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke that includes Rishops, Monks, Nuns, Priests, Nobleman, and peasant. Lenin's writings descibe the need to eliminate the Tsar as the focal point of Holy Russia and the Orthodox Church.

Tsar Nicholas II was not glorified for his actions as a ruler, but for personal piety, and passionbearing in the presence of actions that many of us might run from. His diary , written in English by the way, presents the trumoil that he often felt as an autocratic ruler and the fact that he felt wholly unprepraed for this role. His retreat into his family and their spiritual practices show the true life of The Holy Passionbearer Tsar Nicholas II, His Tsarina, and his children. The effect of a Orthodox Christian rearing of children in a home filled with Christian Love led them to become passionbearers and exemplify Christian behavior to those who sought to destroy them physically and spiritually. They were destroyed in the flesh but they retained their spiritual witness. This is the value of the Romanov Passionbearer's witness to me.

For this reason members of my family(1 daughter and three grandchildren)bear as their patronal saints, the names of the Romanov family .

I would like to see where in the Bible it states that Church and State mixing will, without a doubt, corrupt both.

Did the New Testament church merge state and ecclesiastical power? Again and again and again, every Christian theocracy has been a corruption of both government and Christianity. Jesus was not a fascist.

To the ROCOR Synod, the facts behind the decision of Lenin to assure that the royal, annointed bloodline of the Romanovs was fully eliminated as Christian rulers coincided withthe planned distruction of the Russian Orthodox Church which included not only the Royal family but the other New Martyrs of the Bolshevik Yoke that includes Rishops, Monks, Nuns, Priests, Nobleman, and peasant. Lenin's writings descibe the need to eliminate the Tsar as the focal point of Holy Russia and the Orthodox Church.

While that is nice, it just wasn't the historical reality. The Church benefitted from the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and freedom that entailed for the Church.

Quote

Tsar Nicholas II was not glorified for his actions as a ruler, but for personal piety, and passionbearing in the presence of actions that many of us might run from. His diary , written in English by the way, presents the trumoil that he often felt as an autocratic ruler and the fact that he felt wholly unprepraed for this role. His retreat into his family and their spiritual practices show the true life of The Holy Passionbearer Tsar Nicholas II, His Tsarina, and his children. The effect of a Orthodox Christian rearing of children in a home filled with Christian Love led them to become passionbearers and exemplify Christian behavior to those who sought to destroy them physically and spiritually. They were destroyed in the flesh but they retained their spiritual witness. This is the value of the Romanov Passionbearer's witness to me.

There is more to being pious than that. True piety isn't sitting around and being "religious" while one's population is being slaughtered and suffering.

I don't understand why these political saints are so popular. But if they have to exist, why not at least venerate those who sacrificed themselves in an effort to save lives and protect their citizens? It amazes me that Tsar Boris III of Bulgaria is almost unknown, as are the heroic bishops of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church during WWII.

While that is nice, it just wasn't the historical reality. The Church benefitted from the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and freedom that entailed for the Church.

Yet, I would dispute this. The Church was being brought closer to its origins under Tsar Nicholas II. He encouraged them to find a patriarch and at first when no suitable canidate could be found, if memory serves me correctly, he approached the Holy Synod on bended knee and told them that if need be he would willingly abdicate, his wife would go into a monastery and he would accept the position. Also, as history clearly shows, the abdication of Tsar Nicholas and the bloodbath that arose afterwards did not help the Church but rather brought it to one of the lowest points in Russian history.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

Did the New Testament church merge state and ecclesiastical power? Again and again and again, every Christian theocracy has been a corruption of both government and Christianity. Jesus was not a fascist.

The Byzantine Empire, though corrupted by a few Emperors, did not become corrupted because the two were merged. Our faith would not exist today if it was a secular state, preaching "equality for all". It was a Christian Empire, and the greatest one that existed, in my opinion. It is the people in an autocratic position that corrupt, not the unity of the country. I'd say the Byzantines did quite a good job considering what they had to deal with, and without the support of the state, and vice versa, we would have been overwhelmed by Mohammedans.

However, you still have not stated where in the NT or OT that Christ told us never to merge the two. Simply because he did not say to do it doesn't mean he was condemning it.

Logged

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death, nor mourning nor crying nor suffering, for the old order of things has passed away."

Yeah, it's almost like Matthew is getting this idea from a letter written by a man in the 18th century... . .

What? The exact same people cannot be used for authorities in every subject? I can't quote a biologist to make an appeal to authority in regard to physics? I can't quote an engineer as an appeal to authority in regard to biology? And I can't quote 18th century politicians as an appeal to authority in theology?

They must have skipped over this in community college.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I wonder, if he lived longer, maybe Malcolm X would'ave been led to Christianity?

It would have been wonderful if he had traveled to Ethiopia and experienced Orthodoxy there, or to Egypt and experienced it there, seeing Christianity is for blacks, as well as whites and all ethnicities.

I don't know, but Malcolm X was a true bad-butt, he stood up for racial equality even amongst the worst circumstances and NEVER backed down. What I love most about him is that unlike Martin Luther King, Caeser Chavez and every other social activisit who advocated peaceful change and still submitted to the oppressors, Malcolm X never caved in. He publically challenged them, insulted them and made a stand that the minorities would not stay quiet. His religion on the other hand was crazy--as is all Islam. But hey, Christian governments are bad too. I don't think anything Islam has done compared to Roman Catholic conquistadores baptising my ancestors' infants and then bashing their heads against the trees so that they wouldn't grow up worshipping pagan gods.

Since he did eventually leave The Nation of Islam, I have no particular reservations against Malcolm X, but the fact still remains that he spend most of his adult life in an organisation, that promoted racism.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.

It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.

It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.

Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.

It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.

Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.

Not in the beginning.

Quote

"Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to Black people. Even [Senator James] Eastland knows it. Anyone who has studied the genetic phase of biology knows that white is considered recessive and black is considered dominant."

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.

It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.

Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.

Not in the beginning.

Quote

"Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to Black people. Even [Senator James] Eastland knows it. Anyone who has studied the genetic phase of biology knows that white is considered recessive and black is considered dominant."

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

The difference--something that many White folks never realize--is that Malcolm X's "racism" was reactionary against the years of oppression and discrimination that minorities faced from Europeans, and thus is somewhat more understandable, whereas the racism of White people has no good reason behind it other than greed and Satanic pride, and thus is worse than Malcolm X's racism.

It is still racism. And it is never an excuse. I can tell you about black people who have done the exact same thing. No matter what, I still don't think that the stance, which people like Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammed took was the right one.

Malcolm repudiated the Nation of Islam's racism.

Not in the beginning.

Quote

"Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to Black people. Even [Senator James] Eastland knows it. Anyone who has studied the genetic phase of biology knows that white is considered recessive and black is considered dominant."

Yes, exactly. Notice that I did state that he left the organization later on. I am referring to the time when he was a member. It's nice that he adobted a more embracing attitude to white people before he died.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.